Restorative Justice Week 2009

Events

National Restorative Justice Symposium
"Communities Responding to Human Need"
and National Ron Wiebe Award Ceremony

Restorative Justice: A National Perspective

Barbara Tomporowski
(Barbara.Tomporowski@gov.sk.ca)

National Restorative Justice Symposium

November 18, 2009

DISCLAIMER

Although the author of this presentation is employed as a Senior Policy Analyst with the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General in the Province of Saskatchewan, the content of this presentation does not necessarily reflect the views of the Government of Saskatchewan or the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General.

For more information, or to reference this presentation, please contact:

Barbara Tomporowski
610-1874 Scarth St.
Regina, SK S4P 4B3
(306) 787-9305
Barbara.Tomporowski@gov.sk.ca

What is Restorative Justice?

Bob Cormier’s 2002 definition:

“Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime while holding the offender responsible for his or her actions, by providing an opportunity for the parties directly affected by a crime – victim(s), offender and community – to identify and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime, and seek a resolution that affords healing, reparation and reintegration, and prevents future harm.”

I’m honored to talk to you during the opening panel for the National RJ Symposium, and to talk about a subject that is so important to all of us.

Today I’ll discuss how restorative justice (RJ) is being used across Canada and some exciting national developments. Just in case there is anyone here who isn’t familiar with it, I’d like to start by describing what restorative justice is.

The definition on this slide comes from a paper written by Bob Cormier, who is an official with Public Safety Canada. It’s a good definition of RJ in criminal matters because:

• It’s Canadian;
• It emphasizes the three groups that are involved in RJ (victims, offenders, and community members); and
• It talks about some of the values that underlie RJ.

But RJ isn’t just about responding to crime; it is also used in many other settings, such as schools, workplaces and the child welfare system. So this definition is applicable in the justice context, but it won’t cover RJ in every setting.

[Definition by Cormier, Robert. (2002). “Restorative Justice: Directions and Principles – Developments in Canada.” Presented at the Technical Assistance Workshop of the Programme Network of Institutes at the 11th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Held in Vienna, April 18-25, 2002.]

• RJ emphasizes values rather than specific techniques.
• There is a continuum of restorative responses.
  • The extent to which victims, offenders and communities are involved affects how restorative the process is.
• It is important to consider the needs and interests of victims, women, youth and other groups.

When I talk to professionals about RJ, sometimes they think it is the same as victim-offender mediation (VOM). This is not the case. While processes such as circles, conferences and victim-offender mediation are vital, RJ isn’t about specific techniques; it is an approach that emphasizes values.

There has been some debate in Canada and the United States about when a process is truly “restorative.” Some argue that an approach is only restorative if all three groups (victims, offenders, and community members) are involved, or if there is a face-to-face meeting between them.

Some of the groups I’m involved with say that a process can be more or less restorative, depending on the extent to which victims, offenders and community members are involved. In this view, restorative justice occurs on a continuum, and restorative approaches are still valuable even if it isn’t possible or appropriate to involve all three groups.

Nonetheless, it is crucial to consider the needs and interests of all three groups even if they do not participate. It is particularly important to consider the needs of victims and vulnerable groups that might be affected by restorative processes. Tomorrow there will be a workshop on Reflections from a Women’s Forum on Restorative Justice that will touch on some of these issues.

RJ as a Social Movement

• RJ is used around the world.

• In a 2009 presentation at the Restorative Practices International Conference in Vancouver, Gerry Johnstone argued that RJ is a social movement with multiple agendas:
  • New processes in social responses to crime
  • New conceptions of crime and justice
  • RJ processes in a variety of settings
  • Political reconciliation
  • Transformative justice

The use of RJ is increasing around the world. It has been used in western countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom for many years. But it is increasingly happening in many other countries, from tiny nations like Malta, to places such as Brazil, Jamaica and Thailand.

I heard Gerry Johnstone speak at the Restorative Practices International Conference in Vancouver a few months ago. He gave a great presentation about RJ as a movement that is promoting social change. He argues that advocates for RJ, and its critics, tend to assume that RJ is one particular thing. Instead, he says, RJ is a movement that has multiple agendas. These agendas often overlap, but they also contain crucial differences, which leads to misunderstandings about RJ. This may be one reason why there is debate about the definition of RJ and whether certain processes are “restorative” enough.

Johnstone suggests that there are 5 agendas in the RJ movement:

• New processes in response to crime: Seeks to change the way that society responds to crime by introducing processes such as VOM and sentencing circles.
• New conceptions of crime and justice: RJ wants to change our way of thinking about crime by introducing a new paradigm for viewing crime and responses to it.
• RJ processes in a variety of settings: In this approach, RJ is used to address child welfare cases, behavioural issues and conflict in schools, workplaces and other settings.
• Political reconciliation: Some of the most famous uses of RJ have been in situations where countries are attempting to come to grips with civil war, oppression and genocide, such as the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been re-launched in Canada, and it will be interesting to see how much the commission reflects restorative approaches.
• Transformative justice: This idea was discussed by Sullivan & Tifft in a book called RJ: Healing the Foundations of Our Everyday Lives. It emphasized using restorative approaches every day in all our relationships; the need to address structural problems that cause crime and conflict; and taking an approach to justice based on meeting peoples needs as they define those needs. This is the most ambitious view of RJ.

[Notes based on a PowerPoint presentation by Johnstone, Gerry. (2009). “The Agendas of the Restorative Justice Movement.” Paper presented at the 2nd International Restorative Practices International Conference, Vancouver, May 31 – June 5, 2009.]

Key Dates in Canada

• 1974 – victim-offender mediation pioneered in Ontario
• 1992 – sentencing circles developed in the Yukon
• 1996 – Criminal Code amendments, and the first Restorative Justice Week occurred
• 1997 – Satisfying Justice conference in Vancouver
• 1999 – first Ron Wiebe Award
• 2003 – Canadian consultation on “Values and Principles of RJ in Criminal Matters” and “RJ Program Guidelines”

One of the most important things to understand about the development of RJ is that it didn’t develop as a grand theory. Instead, it came about through experimentation as justice officials and community members tried to find better ways to address the issues they faced. For example, I don’t think that Mark Yantzi could have known that taking young offenders to apologize to their victims would lead to the development of VOM, which is now used around the world.

This slide describes some of the key dates in the development of RJ in Canada. In addition to the development of VOM and sentencing circles, one important date is 1996, when the Criminal Code was amended. Among other things, the amendments included section 717 about alternatives measures, which is important because many of the criminal matters that are referred to RJ programs are referred under alternative measures and youth extrajudicial sanctions.

1996 is also the year that National Restorative Justice Week was first celebrated.

The Satisfying Justice conference in 1997 was an important moment when government officials, RJ practitioners and justice officials from across the country got together to talk about growing interest in RJ and how it could be further developed in Canada. This encouraged many governments and justice agencies to begin looking at how to support community agencies that had already been doing this work for a long time.

Tomorrow night we will find out who’ll receive the 2009 Ron Wiebe Restorative Justice award. This is the 10th anniversary of the award, which was established in 1999.

In 2002, the United Nations adopted the Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters. In 2003, Conflict Resolution Network Canada led a consultation on how the United Nations principles could be applied in Canada. At the same time, Justice Canada developed documents about principles and guidelines for Canadian RJ programs.

RJ is Supported by:

• Community groups and organizations
• Faith groups
• Post-secondary institutions
• Schools and school districts
• Aboriginal governments
• Federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments
• Justice agencies

So how is RJ currently being supported in Canada? It involves:

• Community groups and organizations, such as Community Mediation Services, which I’d like to thank for hosting this conference, and for being patient in answering all of my questions in preparing for this presentation.
• Faith groups, which have a long history of providing programs for offenders and advocating for prison reform.
• Several universities and colleges are offering courses on restorative justice and related fields such as mediation and Aboriginal justice.
• The use of RJ is growing rapidly in the educational system. Elementary schools and high schools are offering peer mediation and using RJ as a teaching tool and a way to resolve conflicts and behavioural issues. It is possible that the greatest impact of RJ may come through these kinds of programs, since they provide an opportunity to teach young people about a positive way to address conflict and be involved in their communities.
• Many Aboriginal governments and communities are offering RJ approaches through their community justice and Aboriginal justice programs. Tomorrow Irene Joe will give a workshop on RJ in an Aboriginal community.
• Federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments provide funding, research and policy development that assist with RJ. For example, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) does a lot of work to support National RJ Week and the Ron Wiebe Award every year. You may also be interested to know that there is a network of government officials that works to support the development of RJ. The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on RJ includes officials from Justice Canada, the Policy Centre for Victim Issues, the CSC, Public Safety Canada, the RCMP, the National Parole Board, and every province and territory.
• Finally, there are many police officers, Crown prosecutors, judges, and corrections workers who support RJ by making referrals to restorative programs, encouraging the use of restorative processes in appropriate cases, and speaking out about the value of RJ. You might have noticed an article by a police officer named Karen Bates in the 2009 National RJ Week kit. She talks about the value of RJ in responding to crime and meeting the needs of victims and communities.

As I just mentioned, some of the greatest growth in RJ is occurring in areas such as the school system. I’m sure we will learn more about that during the presentation on Restorative Justice in School Communities tomorrow. My experience is in the justice system, so I’ll focus more on using RJ with criminal cases.

As this slide shows, RJ can occur at many points throughout the justice system.

Police officers and Crown prosecutors can apply RJ by using their discretion to refer matters to alternative measures and youth extrajudicial sanctions. The type of cases that can be referred depend on the criteria in theCriminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and federal and provincial policies, but most referrals include property matters and minor assaults. The way that referrals are made, and whether they are made on a pre-charge or post-charge basis,varies a lot across the country.

Processes such as VOM and conferences can occur at several points along this continuum, and there are a few programs in Canada that use RJ to address extremely serious matters such as kidnapping and murder. These programs often use VOM after the offender has appeared before the courts or been sentenced. The Collaborative Justice Project in Ottawa and the Community Justice Initiatives program in BC are well-known examples of these approaches.

Tomorrow you’ll have the opportunity to hear about how RJ can be used during the corrections and post-release parts of this justice continuum. Tania Petrellis will talk about restorative practices in corrections, and Andrew McWhinnie will discuss Circles of Support and Accountability.

RJ in Canada

• RJ is used to some extent in every province and territory.
• Many provinces and territories have Aboriginal justice initiatives.
• Justice committees are widespread.
• While most criminal matters involve property crimes and minor assaults, RJ is being used with more serious matters.
• RJ networks have been developed in several cities, regions, provinces and territories.

RJ is being used across Canada, although some provinces and territories have more activity than others. There are too many programs to mention them all, but I’d like to talk about a few highlights.

• First, Nova Scotia is widely known for its comprehensive RJ policy that allows youth cases to be referred at any point of the justice continuum. They handle about 1600 youth cases a year.
• British Columbia is a leader in terms of using pre-charge processes and involving community members. In 2006/07, almost 700 volunteers in BC contributed more than 18,000 hours to RJ.
• Quebec is well known for its extensive system of youth services. They use extrajudicial sanctions in about 35% of youth cases annually.
• I hope you’ll forgive me if I take a moment to mention my own province. Saskatchewan has the most adult and youth referrals in the country – 6,000 criminal cases are handled with restorative approaches every year.

Justice committees are widespread across the country, particularly for youth, and there is a great deal of Aboriginal justice activity.

Finally, RJ networks are being developed. They are operating in cities such as Vancouver and Ottawa, and there are provincial and territorial organizations in Alberta and the Yukon. Many other provinces are developing networks, and I understand that Newfoundland and Labrador had a Restorative Justice Coalition that was active for several years in public education. I think that the development of these networks is a sign that restorative programs are maturing in Canada.

New Developments

• Canadian Restorative Justice Consortium
• National Demonstration Project on Circles of Support and Accountability
• Nova Scotia Restorative Justice Community University Research Alliance

Now I’ll talk about three major initiatives that will affect RJ across Canada.

The Canadian RJ Consortium (CRJC)

• 97 individuals and organizations participated in a 2008 consultation about whether there is a need for a national RJ organization.
• The top three issues identified by respondents:
  • Low levels of public dialogue and awareness about RJ and justice issues
  • A lack of RJ input in criminal justice reform
  • The lack of consistent and sufficient financial support
• 90% of respondents supported the development of the CRJC.

Some work has been occurring over the past two years to form a national organization that is tentatively called the Canadian RJ Consortium. This idea was first discussed at the 2005 National RJ Symposium, and a Steering Committee formed in 2007. The Steering Committee held a consultation to determine if there is a need for a national association. Victims organizations, restorative practitioners, Aboriginal groups, law enforcement agencies, and many others were invited to participate.

The Steering Committee sent out a discussion paper and an online survey. This resulted in almost 100 responses from individuals and groups across much of the country. They indicated that their top three concerns related to RJ included:

• Low levels of public dialogue and awareness about RJ and justice issues
• A lack of RJ input in criminal justice reform
• The lack of consistent and sufficient financial support for RJ programs.

Additionally, 86% of respondents were concerned about the lack of a national voice for RJ, and 72% were concerned about the lack of a national RJ centre for excellence.

There was strong support for establishing a national RJ organization. 90% of respondents to the online survey agreed with developing the CRJC.

• The top three goals for the CRJC:
  • Promote dialogue and public education about RJ
  • Advocate for the use of RJ
  • Assist practitioners to develop their skills

• Potential concerns about establishing the CRJC:
  • Ensuring that it would not standardize or control local operations
  • Honoring the differences between Aboriginal justice and RJ
• Respondents felt the CRJC could provide a website and a newsletter, hold conferences, and circulate information about new developments.

Respondents felt that the CRJC could play a valuable role in promoting public education about RJ, advocatingfor its use, and assisting RJ practitioners to develop their skills. Additionally, they were interested in how the CRJC could support partnerships and networking between RJ agencies.

While there was strong support for the development of the CRJC, the respondents also had a few concerns. They wanted to ensure that a national organization would support their work at the local, regional and provincial level, rather than trying to standardize or control how they operate. Some respondents also commented on the importance of ensuring that the national organization understands and respects the differences between RJ and Aboriginal justice approaches.

The respondents who took the online survey were asked whether they would use a website and other tools or resources if the CRJC provided them. For example, virtually all said that they would use a website.

Given the strong level of interest in forming a national organization, the Steering Committee is now thinking about how the CRJC could be structured and funded.

Nova Scotia Restorative Justice Community University Research Alliance

• Research is being conducted on the implementation and development of Nova Scotia’s RJ program.
• The initiative is primarily funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
• Involves 17 research projects over 5 years.

The Nova Scotia Community University Research Alliance (CURA) is an alliance between university researchers and community organizations to explore the development and implementation of the Nova Scotia RJ program. We are honored to have Jennifer Llewellyn as our keynote speaker tomorrow. Jennifer is involved in the CURA project.

The CURA project is funded by a five year grant provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada through Dalhousie University. It is significant that a national funding agency is supporting this multi-disciplinary initiative that involves many agencies and sectors. This reflects the inclusive and holistic nature of RJ.

The CURA involves 17 separate research projects that are looking at a wide range of issues. For example, research is occurring on:

• How RJ relates to multicultural communities and diverse groups of clients;
• The impact of RJ on mental health outcomes for clients; and
• How the success of restorative approaches can be measured.

While the research focuses on Nova Scotia programs, I am hopeful that it will contribute a great deal to our knowledge about restorative practice in Canada. The research projects consider theoretical and practical issues that emerge from the institutionalization of RJ. The results may be very applicable to restorative programs in other places.

National Demonstration Project on Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA)

• Public Safety Canada will provide about $7.4 million to 16 COSA projects over 5 years.
• There will be a comprehensive national evaluation.
• Previous evaluations show that offenders who participate in COSAs have significantly lower re-offending rates.

Circles of Support and Accountability (COSAs) involve groups of community members who provide assistance, support and supervision to offenders who are released into the community. Many of these offenders, who are called the “core members” of the circles, are high-risk sex offenders. The circles provide practical assistance in areas such as finding housing and employment, and meet regularly with the core member to help them make positive choices and hold them accountable to ensure that communities are safe.

There are currently 16 groups across Canada that provide circles for about 140 core members.

The federal government has recently announced about $7.4 million in funding to the COSA groups over five years. This will enable the number of circles to double, and allow COSA projects to significantly increase their capacity to recruit volunteers, provide training, and work with the core members.

The demonstration project will also include a comprehensive evaluation. As Andrew McWhinnie will discuss during this conference, an evaluation found that offenders who participate in these circles have much lower rates of re-offending. For example, sexual reoffending for offenders who had circles was 83% lower that the control group of offenders that did not. [Wilson, Robin, Cortoni, Franca, & McWhinnie, Andrew. (2009). “Circles of Support and Accountability: A Canadian National Replication of Outcome Findings.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 21 (4): 412-430.]

This suggests that COSAs may contribute a great deal to community safety, and it will be interesting to see the results of this national project.

Strengths of RJ in Canada

• Support and leadership from communities, faith groups, governments, universities, schools, justice agencies, and many others.
• There are a variety of community-based models and approaches that meet local needs.
• Many RJ agencies have extensive experience.
• Guidelines, best practices, DVDs, and other tools are being developed.

This slide summarizes some of our strengths. With support and leadership from so many communities and organizations, we have been able to develop a range of programs that meet the unique needs and circumstances of the communities that offer them.

The fact that many programs have extensive experience is really important. Some of these programs are helping newer agencies develop, and they want to take on new challenges.

Over the past few years, there has also been a growing number of tools that restorative agencies can use to provide services and inform people about what they do. These tools include DVDs, media kits and guidelines.

Challenges for RJ

• How does RJ fit with the public discourse on crime and justice?
• Securing stable, ongoing funding.
• Expanding the use of RJ throughout the justice system and in other sectors.
• Continuing to improve service delivery to ensure the highest quality of service, especially to victims.
• Supporting research, evaluation and data collection.

While RJ is growing in many parts of Canada and has many strengths, it is also facing a number of challenges. For example, there is a great deal of discussion in the news about getting “tough on crime”. Many restorative agencies feel that it is difficult to make progress with RJ in the face of this discourse. We all have an interest in determining what kinds of responses can help prevent crime, respond when crimes occur, prevent re-offending, and make communities safer. I believe that there is a need for continuing dialogue about the appropriate role for RJ in each of these areas.

Many restorative agencies are also struggling to find ongoing, stable funding. Programs often operate with in-kind support and funding from governments, volunteers, faith organizations, community groups, and other sources.   The level of funding varies widely, and restorative programs in some communities have faced program cuts and changing funding requirements. The difficult economic climate means that this challenge is not likely to go away soon, but this issue needs to be considered to assist with the stability of existing restorative programs and to enable them to expand.

As I mentioned earlier, many agencies have extensive experience and would like to take on new challenges. This might include expanding the number of referrals from the justice system, expanding how RJ is used across the justice system, and expanding in other sectors such as schools, workplaces and the child welfare system. Among other things, expanding will require training for staff and volunteers and increased partnerships with various sectors.

Some work is needed to ensure that all restorative agencies provide the highest possible quality of service to victims, offenders and communities. It is particularly important to continue working with victims agenciesto ensure that RJ practitioners have training about victim needs and issues, and ensure that RJ agencies meet these needs. Howard Zehr recently published a blog entry about this. He wrote, “Restorative justice is intended to make victims and their needs a priority - not the only priority, but a central one.  To do that, practitioners and programs must be truly victim-sensitive.  Unless we deeply and constantly engage with victim  perspectives, we are likely to be insensitive to the language, the approaches, the barriers that turn people off.”  Zehr comments on the need for restorative agencies to partner with victims agencies; to take training on victims needs and victims programs; to involve victims agencies in the development of restorative programs and services; and to engage in a deep and sustained dialogue with victim services at every point. [Zehr, Howard. (October 28, 2009). “Restorative Justice and Victim Services Collaboration”. Restorative Justice Blog. Accessed October 28, 2009 at http://emu.edu/blog/restorative-justice/2009/10/28/restorative-justice-and-victim-services-collaboration/]

Finally, although Canada is considered a world leader in RJ, we don’t have any way to track the number of cases across the country. Developing better ways to collect data and measure the use of RJ will be a long-term project. We will also need to strengthen our efforts to conduct research. I hope that the CURA project in Nova Scotia and the national demonstration project on Circles of Support and Accountability will help to address this.

Conclusions

• RJ is occurring across Canada.
• RJ has been growing, but there are challenges.
• We need dialogue, partnerships, commitment, and creativity to support its evolution.

In conclusion, this is the time to consider how far we have come, the challenges that lie ahead, and how RJ can continue to evolve and mature.

We need dialogue, partnerships, and creativity to enable this evolution to occur. With the strengths and experience we have to draw upon, and the wisdom and commitment we share, I believe we can overcome the challenges we face so that RJ will continue to evolve and mature in Canada. I look forward to working on this with you in the years to come.